It's Official...

[KG_Cloghaun]

I agree with Mark, I'm just not interested in the subject matter. If they were going to step outside WW2 for the 1st release & do something more modern, I'd have much rather seen a Nato vs Warsaw Pact release circa 1980's. Something with a "relatively" even playing field. I assume for this release they'll make the conditions in such a way to try & even things out, it still seems like a stretch.

That said, I still might buy it simply because I'm very excited about the new engine & want to see how it plays. Plus, future modules for the 1st release might be more interesting.

[KG_Kharkov]

It's an absurd premise for the game. As if Syrian armor could ever mass in bulk without being absolutely destroyed by the U.S. air force. It might as well be a paintball CM game. I agree with Frank -- if you were going to do modern combat why not a Red Storm Rising type of game with Nato vs. Warsaw Pact. The Syrians would have a tough time beating the Lebanonese militia . . . .

[KG_Jag]

But then they could not sell it to US military for training purposes.

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

But then they could not sell it to US military for training purposes.

Your kidding right?

They should have just made it for the Military and made another from the ground up for WWII. I have never been a big fan of conversions...

[KG_AGCent]

First off, 700mb files was never mentioned by BFC, a poster asked as a way of being absurd. BFC says the file size will be manageable and within the scope we are currently used to.

[KG_Jag]

Not kidding JJ--almost since the day that the initial subject matter of CMx2 was announced, many of us have had a strong suspicion that sale of the game (or a version of it) to the US military is what dictated the conflict covered. In response to direct question posed to it, Battlefront's statements/responses has only reinforced original suspicions.

Rob is correct with regard to PBEM file size.

[KG_SSpoom]

I have no problem with the "setting" of the game. Its not what I would have prefered (cold war Europe would have kicked ass)but I see it as a potentially challenging game from both sides.
It may not be as straight forward as a WWII game would be as in he who kicks the most ass wins, but trying to fight as the U.S. with the many limitations on rules of engagement and aversion to casualties that we currently have may balance the scenarios out more than we think.
I can see the "Syrians" massing armour in cities and suburbs where our aversion to taking civilian life would rule out or severely curtail the air power aspect.
If the U.S. forces are limited to certain rules : lets say that to fire on certain areas of the map permission to fire is needed from above, maybe all the way to the level of Sec Defence then the ability to just level large areas with our overwhelming fire power is negated. If not negated then maybe "delayed", permission to engage the troops in the Mosque might not be granted for 10 game turns. This would be quite realistic and could give the bad guys time to do some damage or withdrawl to other fighting positions. Add I.E.D.s and civilians to the mix and who knows what we might have. Im keeping an open mind and will almost undoubtedly buy this game (unless the demo blows)
If there is a "Blue on Blue" option we could even have a "Texas secession"
scenario =)
"Dateline 2009" W returns to Texas pissed that Hillary won the election and sees this as a sign if weakness, using this as a rallying cry he stirs up all the wildhairs of Texas into bringing back the "Republic of Texas". Hell we could even use the desert maps of Syria to represent the plains of Texas.
=)

[KG_Soldier]

I'd buy that game, the Texas Secession one.